SCMR 2001

2001 PLP 808 (SCMR)

GOVERNMENT OF SINDH — Petitioner Versus Dr. ABRAR ALI SHEIKH — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Civil Petition No. 368-K of 2000, decided on 29th August, 2000.
Honorable Judges
Ch. Muhammad Arif, Deedar Hussain Shah and Hamid Ali Mirza, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2001 PLP 808 (SCMR)
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Ch. Muhammad Arif, Deedar Hussain Shah and Hamid Ali Mirza, JJ
Parties GOVERNMENT OF SINDH — Petitioner Versus Dr. ABRAR ALI SHEIKH — Respondent
Primary Law Supreme Court Rules, 1980
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 808 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Supreme Court Rules, 1980 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 808 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Ch. Muhammad Arif, Deedar Hussain Shah and Hamid Ali Mirza, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 808 (SCMR) (GOVERNMENT OF SINDH — Petitioner Versus Dr. ABRAR ALI SHEIKH — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Supreme Court Rules, 1980

Representation

  • Ainuddin, Additional Advocate-General, Sindh and A.A. Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
  • Nemo for Respondent.
  • Date of hearing: 29th August, 2000.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Sindh Circuit Bench, Larkana dated 20-5-2000 passed in C.P. No. D-3 of 1999).

O.XXXIII, R. 6

Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)

Petition for Leave to Appeal

Condonation of delay

Petition was barred by ten days

Delay was caused due to time spent in the Government office with a view to finalising any matter and the delay was not deliberate

Validity

Delay in filing of the petition had got no nexus whatsoever with any explanation of the entire period by metes and bounds

Petition being barred by time, leave to appeal was refused.

Judgment & Decree

This petition is barred by 10 days and the ground taken vide memo. of application under Order XXXIII, Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 for condonation of delay is that the matter was within time upto 8-8-2000 and as the petition has been filed on 1-8-2000 the same is within time. "If any delay caused in the filing of the above petition, the same may be condoned in the larger interest of justice, equity and good conscience". We have heard the learned Law Officer who has frankly conceded that there is delay but the time spent in the Government office with a view to finalising any matter for purposes of taking in hand of the future remedy does case some delay and that the delay is not deliberate.

2. We are afraid the delay in filing of the petition in the circumstances as detailed in para. 3 of the memo. of application under Order XXXIII, Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules has got no nexus whatsoever with any explanation of the entire period by metes and bounds. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed as barred by time. Q.M.H./M.A.K./G-50/S Petition dismissed.